ArticleCureus2025
Comparing Artificial Intelligence and Obstetrics Residents in Answering Standardized Patient Questions Regarding Gestational Diabetes.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing the information quality of AI-generated patient educational materials for diabetes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction This study evaluated the performance of three artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots (GPT-3.5 (OpenAI, San Francisco, USA), GPT-4o (OpenAI, San Francisco, USA), and DeepSeek V3 0324 (DeepSeek AI, Beijing, China)) compared to eight gynecology residents in answering questions related to gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), aiming to assess and compare the accuracy and completeness of responses to standardized patient questions on gestational diabetes in pregnancy. Methods Twenty-four questions were answered by three chatbots (GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, and DeepSeek V3 0324) and eight residents. Two faculty members independently rated the responses for accuracy and completeness using a 5-point scale. Independent-samples t-tests were used for statistical analysis. Results The mean accuracy scores were 3.64 for residents, 4.67 for GPT-3.5, 4.69 for GPT-4o, and 4.81 for DeepSeek V3 0324. The mean completeness scores were 2.05 for residents, 2.83 for GPT-3.5, 4.00 for GPT-4o, and 4.75 for DeepSeek V3 0324. T-tests showed that all AI models had significantly higher accuracy than residents (p < 0.001). Completeness scores were significantly higher for GPT-4o and DeepSeek V3 0324 (p < 0.001), while the difference between GPT-3.5 and residents for completeness was not statistically significant (p = 0.058). Conclusion AI models, particularly DeepSeek V3 0324 and GPT-4o, outperformed gynecology residents in both accuracy and completeness when answering GDM-related questions. These preliminary findings suggest that AI tools may complement medical education and clinical support, but further research is required before broader implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.